This research investigates media art through practice based and theoretic research. At the centre of this investigation are seminal exhibitions in the history of media art as well as my own curatorial practice. The thesis proposes that paradigm shifts in media art and society are closely linked and that studying those paradigm shifts through the chosen exhibitions provides insights into the interlocking dynamics of art, technology and social change.
This diagram is rendered by graphviz using the dot language. It tries to reflect key elements of the dominant paradigms in the 20th century regarding accumulation regimes, developmental models, political constellations, scientific breakthroughs, artistic movements and social movements. The current version is still experimental and not very strict in its interpretation of the model, which means that the diagram is imperfect on one hand anyway, but also has deliberately avoided becoming too linear, i.e. certain new terms are brought in while others get dropped.
This is a relatively short mental note to myself, an attempt to address a basic methodological issue which I have been thinking about while reading economic and political theory over the past few days. I don't mean to address all the issues relating to practice-led PhDs. This is also not specifically about my own work, although I am affected by it. The problem which poses myself in renewed urgency is as follows.
Responding to something that Doll wrote
Lindsay I also feel *my* work doesn't make an easy fit into TNL compared to what you and Armin and some others post, because your writings are well-argued and/or intrigueingly speculative whereas a lot of what i am putting up is more rambly and thought processes scrawled as they come to me, as i am afraid that if i dont write everything, and repeat my ideas in different ways within the 1 text a number of times, i will lose what few idea kernels that i have in the thesis fog that surrounds me